Commissioner Of Police & Anor V. Jimoh Oguntayo (1993)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

KUTIGI, J.S.C. 

At the Lagos High Court the plaintiff claimed against the defendants jointly and severally the sum of N30,000.00 being special and general damages suffered as a result of wrongful act of the 2nd defendant acting as agent of the 1st defendant when on 22nd day of November, 1982, the 2nd defendant in the course of his duties as Assistant Commissioner of Police wrongfully seized, detained and converted at C.I.D. Panti Police Station, Adekunle, Yaba Lagos State the plaintiff’s vehicle registration Mitsubishi LA 7993 DA without any lawful justification.

Alternatively the plaintiff claimed against the defendants jointly and severally the return/release in road worthy condition of the said vehicle Mitsubishi LA 7993 DA seized and detained by the 2nd defendant acting as agent of the 1st defendant, loss of use and general damages for the wrongful detention of the said vehicle.

The plaintiff said he made several demands for the return of the said vehicle but all efforts proved abortive.

After the filing and exchange of pleadings the case proceeded to trial. At the hearing only the plaintiff testified for himself while the defendants called three witnesses.

Simply put plaintiff’s case was that he bought a Mitsubishi van with registration No. LA 7993 DA from one Akinbowale Somorin trading under the name and style of “E.A. Abidogun Enterprises” for N5,145.00. He was issued a receipt (Exhibit A). The Delivery Note in respect of the same vehicle was tendered as Exhibit B. Both Exhibits A & B are dated 16/2/82. Armed with Exhs. A & B the plaintiff went to Ikeja Licensing Office and obtained the necessary vehicle particulars. These were tendered as Exhibits C-C3). He also got the vehicle insured with the American International Insurance Company (Nigeria) Limited. The Certificate of Insurance was Exhibit C4. On 22/11/82 when the plaintiff visited Oduduwa Headquarters Ikeja to see a friend, the 1st defendant seized the van and collected all the vehicle particulars from him. The van was impounded on the instruction of the 2nd defendant. He wrote series of letters to the defendants for the release of the van. There was no positive result hence he instituted this action.

The defendants on the other hand claimed that the vehicle was unlawfully released by some police officers at the pedro Police Station, Shomolu to Mr. Akinbowale Somorin, the plaintiff’s vendor, where it was kept as a “lost and found” property pending the discovery of its true owner. They said the vehicle was suspected to have been stolen and as such plaintiff’s vendor had no title which he could pass to the plaintiff. The seizure and retention of the van by them was therefore proper and lawful.

In a considered judgment the learned trial Judge dismissed the plaintiff’s claim when he held on page 161 of the record thus:-

“The property in the Mitsubishi van could not have passed to the plaintiff to enable him maintain an action in detinue as the documents he relied on as conferring title i.e. Exhibits A & B are spurious. The plaintiff’s claim for a declaration that he is the owner of the vehicle and that its continued detention is wrongful……..is hereby dismissed. The claim for its delivery to the plaintiff cannot also stand and it is also dismissed as plaintiff has failed to show that ownership of the vehicle was rightly or legally vested in him – vide Sodimu v. N.P.A. (1975) 1 All NLR 153; Ayeni v. B.O.C.E. (1965) 2 All NLR 92; Kofi Gbojor v. Agbonburegui (1961) 1 All NLR 853 (Pt.lV); Dumuje v. Aduozo & Anor (1978) 2 S.C. 1.”

N200.00 costs were awarded against the plaintiff.

Dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial court the plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division. Three grounds of appeal were filed as follows:”

“Grounds of Appeal

(i) The trial court was wrong in law by holding that the property in the Mitsubishi van could not have passed to the plaintiff to enable him maintain an action in detinue as the documents he relied on as conferring title i.e. Exhibits A & B are spurious.

Particulars of Error